Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by tombombadil
It has been discussed many times on ATS. Nukes, fool! If we need to build this canal to save us all no mountains will stand in the way.

Unleash the power of the Pacific against our foe. I'm talking about a mile wide channel of water with a continuous flow of cooling power. It would be unstoppable, even by the massive erupting force of Yellowstone's sleeping dragon.

Use nukes to solve this issue? Ok, so radiate the western half of the US to save us from a volcano, and have radioactive people running around, and it may not even blow afterall?...yeah, makes sense to me!

Can we please be serious about this?

[edit on 1/1/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

[edit on 1/1/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


And as I pointed out in this post, uplift may or may not be a decisive indicator of eruption.

It was NOT for Rabaul, the most recent caldera eruption.

Originally posted by tombombadil
Unleash the power of the Pacific against our foe. I'm talking about a mile wide channel of water with a continuous flow of cooling power. It would be unstoppable, even by the massive erupting force of Yellowstone's sleeping dragon.

So, I'll assume that the molten lava that pops out of Hawaiian volcanoes is just a fluke and would actually not be there if the mountain that it was a part of (and of which it is formed) was somehow cooled by the power of the Pacific ocean.

Hrm... Sorry, I still don't get it.

-K

The detonation of underground nuclear device for the purpose of mining will not wreak the havoc you described. Nuclear mining is safer than you image.

reply to post by redhatty


I see your point, and that makes sense.
As to the possibility that there WILL be a caldera-forming eruption, this will probably answer that.

Of all the possible hazards from a future volcanic eruption in the Yellowstone region, by far the least likely would be another explosive caldera-forming eruption of great volumes of rhyolitic ash. Abundant evidence indicates that hot magma continues to exist beneath Yellowstone, but it is uncertain how much of it remains liquid, how well the liquid is interconnected, and thus how much remains eruptible. Any eruption of sufficient volume to form a new caldera probably would occur only from within the present Yellowstone caldera, and the history of postcaldera rhyolitic eruptions strongly suggests that the subcaldera magma chamber is now a largely crystallized mush. The probability of another major caldera-forming Yellowstone eruption, in the absence of strong premonitory indications of major magmatic intrusion and degassing beneath a large area of the caldera, can be considered to be below the threshold of useful calculation.

In northern california at The Geysers...another geothermal area like yellowstone.....unusual earthquake activity...much more frequent and bigger than normal.......related????

Nuclear mining may be safer than we imagine but not when doing it next to an underground volcano...

Now please can we get back to just reporting the information. There is no way to stop it at all. Nor dampen it like said before. So let us please drop the hypothetical save the world situations. We are here to report the facts. And discuss possibilities of YellowStone doing damage.

Using nukes to stop a giant monster like Yellowstone makes as much sense as putting a rubber cork in it. Nothing can stop it! If a nuke is set off even underground, that too could cause it to blow. That region is full of cracks, fissures and soft rock. I wouldn't want to be the one taking that idea to the table.

Originally posted by tombombadil
The detonation of underground nuclear device for the purpose of mining will not wreak the havoc you described. Nuclear mining is safer than you image.

Unfortunately there are no examples to use to prove this. Irregardless, this thread's purpose is to monitor and discuss what is actually happening, not to imagine Hollywood CGI created ideas on how to avoid an eruption.

Let's stay on topic

reply to post by pantangele


Comrad "pantangele" nice to hear from you.

The first thing I noticed years ago when I first started using seismic, was that the spots where the USGS states that an earthquake struck is usually off, up to miles off; the further their seismic units are located from the source, the farther their projections of where the earthquake actually struck can be off. So, it is hard to say how close to being accurate are their projections of where the smaller earthquakes are actually occurring. At the park, I think their projections might be off a hundred yard or many hundreds of yards, since their seismic units are closer than in other areas of the USA.

I didn't state that the liquid is magma, all I said is "liquid".

No one knows for sure what liquid is flowing down there; I myself would think it might be super heated water. I think it is super heated water looking for a new conduit through which to travel, because an old conduit became plugged for one reason or another.

As you state, you think it is getting nearer the surface; if it is indeed getting nearer the surface as you suggest, then I think another "NEW" geyser might start up spurting steam in the future; not magma.

I'd like to see a new geyser in "Yellowstone National Park" that would be cool!

Well a mile wide channel of water would then act as a super conduit to channel a mega tsunami all the way back to its source.

Here is a site of interest if any haven't seen. It is a long pan but good read and info

www.geology.wisc.edu...

And this one shows the chamber with topo map.

www.nationalparkstraveler.com...

I think to keep from repeating ourselves too much/ or rehash, it might be a good idea to post a list of good sites we can agree on every 20 pages or so. That way also we can help any newbees to see and understand where we have been and what we are looking at.
All we have to do signal "This is a good site" (?)

Sound possibly good?

Have any of you wondered if this (nukes) is what what was being done when the second harmonics were going and then all of a sudden we were all taken off line and then there was a really deep double earthquake and things got better and we were all allowed to see what was going on again

what do you think? not impossible. but if the announced ... um we're going to try to nuke it...

reply to post by trusername

I don't believe so. A blast like that would make the news quick. Someone nearby would report it.


[edit on 1/1/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch


I agree, a caldera forming eruption is probably not in the immediate future, but a Phreatic eruption may be.

Any eruption creates an immediate concern, whether it be phreatic or magmatic, because of the location.

Any eruption at Yellowstone could create a chain reaction that could continues for weeks, months, or even years, building in intensity as peaks then reducing intensity before it stops completely.

Bottom line is....

We just don't know what could happen and how bad it could get.

Please,
the nuke idea, We know it is a supper volcano but I think it would be a bit arrogant of us to think we would know exactly how an operation like that would exact.
As I have said before, That is like dropping a sharp pin on a balloon!
Throwing gas on a fire..
...

reply to post by MadDogtheHunter


I doubt it too - but it did cross my mind.

what do you think is behind the deep and distant anomaly double quake?

Originally posted by trusername
reply to post by MadDogtheHunter

 

I doubt it too - but it did cross my mind.

what do you think is behind the deep and distant anomaly double quake?

Could very well be mirrored. Like an echo of sorts. If there were an area of porous sediment nearby, the vibrations could have refracted and caused a mirror effect. Thats my guess. I've heard of this before, when watching a program on Discovery about natural gas drilling, and sonar waves.

[edit on 1/1/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

Has there been any recent earthquakes at Yellowstone? Or the rest of the world?

reply to post by Yummy Freelunch



pboweb.unavco.org...

and look at the "height" on the "cleaned."